Heads up: Ruby 1.9.3 landed in Rawhide

[Steve Grubb]

On Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:32:09 AM Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:42:53AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Monday, February 06, 2012 09:31:50 AM Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > > Ruby 1.9.3 has finally made it into Rawhide, there are still few more
> > > packages that need to be built, but otherwise the transitions was
> > > successful.
> > > 
> > > Please note again, that soname has been bumped to 1.9.1 and license is
> > > changed from GPLv2 or Ruby to BSD or Ruby, as already announced.
> > 
> > Would have been nice if this project had kicked off rebuilds like other
> > soname bump projects do. :)  I'm finding a problem with my package.
> > According to the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby
> > guidelines, I should be doing the ruby_sitearch macro. But this seems to
> > point to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/site_ruby/ and I would have expected it
> > to be somewhere else like /usr/lib64/ruby/...
> > 
> > Did this really change to /usr/local/lib64/ruby/? The "local" part is
> > throwing off my package.
> 
> The new ruby package changed the rpm macros before the new packaging
> guidelines for ruby were (they're still pending but hopefully will be
> approved by next Wed) approved.  So I believe they want to change from
> %ruby_site* to %ruby_vendor*.  This portion of the new Guidelines isn't
> controversial to the FPC (FPC did implicitly assume that this change was
> arrived at via the whole Ruby SIG rather than just the ruby pakage
> maintainer, though -- if this is in error, please let us know) so it's not
> ideal but seems reasonable to update your package to use
> %ruby_vendorarchdir now that they've pushed out a package that uses these
> new macros.

Normally you have to define that in your spec file. What's the magic text to define 
that? Also, I like keep my spec file as identical as possible between all Fedora 
releases. Would I have any problem on F16/15 using the same macro?

-Steve